VINEY MITTAL,J. - (1.) The plaintiff has concurrently remained unsuccessful before the two courts below in his suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff had retired in the year 1990 from Punjab University as a Senior Scientific Officer. He filed a suit on November 3,1995 claiming that he was entitled to revised grades with effect from the year 1984. He also claimed a direction against the defendants to pay the arrears as per the revised grades and also claimed that he was entitled to revised pension on account of the revision of the pay scales.
(2.) Both the courts below have held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. Additionally, it has been held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the revised grades, as claimed by him, inasmuch as he was not entitled to a scale equivalent to the pay scale of Deputy Registrar and other like posts. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned first appellate Court. Shri Rajinder Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff could not be held to be barred by limitation and further his claim was justified in law. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.
(3.) I find that the findings recorded by the two courts below cannot be held to be erroneous. The plaintiff was working as a Senior Scientific Officer in Punjab University. He was claiming equivalent grades as were admissible to Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar. The two Courts below have held that the posts, which were claimed to be equivalent to the post of Senior Scientific Officer, were not equivalent but were having different duties. The claim of the plaintiff has also been held to be barred by limitation. It is clear that the plaintiff had retired in the year 1990 and he had filed the suit on November 3,1995 claiming revised grades with effect from 1984. In these circumstances, besides the fact that the plaintiff has no claim on merits of the controversy also, the suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be treated to be within limitation.;